or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Why are people so angry about the update?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are people so angry about the update? - Page 3

post #81 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well you are close there. Personally I don't even own an iPhone because it was too expensive initially and I wanted to see where Apple was going with the software suite. It was pretty obvious right from the beginning that the software was not finished. The other issue with that is that Apple was holding up the fact that the iPhones come with OS/X as a indication of future software freedom.

.
.
.
much removed for bevity
.
.
.

The problem is if this sort of behavior is not checked it will just extend itself further and further. There is more depth to this issue than many believe. It is no surprise that the legal community and the legislative communities are taking serious looks at the behavior of cell companies and operations like ITunes.

DAve

The problem with most of your arguments are that they are projections of your desires, not based on actually events and information.

First example - 'Obvious their software was not finished' This can be said of almost (if not all) software. OS 10.5.11 will not be finished, I'll make that prediction now. This is true statement with no real value.

Second example - (paraphrased for brevity) OS X implies software freedom. Where does this come from? Apple touted OS X as way to enhance software development and robustness - both of which I think are true. They never said anything about 'software freedom' either way (assuming anyone knows what that is)

Third example - monopoly. While it is technically correct to refer to AT&T's access to the iPhone as a monopoly it certainly doesn't apply in any economic sense. It would be more correct to refer to it as exclusive. As many, many, many others point out the iPhone has many, many competitors and it is only accounting for a tiny percentage of the cell-phone market at this time. Additionally, the cell-phone industry is anything but a monopoly in the US (or most countries). There are three major carriers that do compete (and offer different services and experiences as demonstrated by the many here who complain about AT&T's poor service in comparison to other carriers). You may want to claim collusion, but you're not doing that.

What continues to amaze me about these discussions is that, as best I can tell, Apple has been amazingly transparent. They have told you exactly what you will get, they have told you exactly what it would cost and what it would do. They have told you exactly what might happen with the upgrade, which follows exactly what is spelled out in the EULA's.

The solution to these issues is simple - Don't buy. And if you buy but want change (like me) give feedback to Apple. There are, IMO, absolutely zero legal issues here. There are, IMO, absolutely zero reasons to be ANGRY at Apple, they've done what they said they would do. Don't like it, go elsewhere. Its not like MSFT where you have to use it because 85%+ of the world uses it - that's a monopoly. <1% of the market in one country is hardly a monopoly.
post #82 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Now, welcome to the new world of "strategic partnerships". A strategic partnership is a way for two or more companies to work together in a way as to put their competition at a disadvantage and to suck more money out of consumer's pockets without providing more value.

Boy are you naive!

Sure Apple wants to make money at every turn, but the driving force behind its partnerships is that it can do things that it wouldn't otherwise be able to do by itself and offer consumers unprecedented services.

Apple didn't want to (and couldn't feasably) develop its own cellular network, and so it partners with other companies that have already built them.

Apple didn't want to (and couldn't feasably) become a record company and and so it partnered with record companies that have already produced hundreds of years of music.

Apple didn't want to (and couldn't feasably) become a movie studio and TV Network and so it partnered with companies that have produced hundreds of hours of content.

You pine away for the small little Apple of yesterday that had 9 customers, generic computers, and lived up to all your late-night-in-the-door-room ideals. But as the currency of society is changing from industry to information, and the integration of computers in people's lives expands, Apple is also expanding to provide innovative products on the cusp of fundamental change.

It's funny that so many of the people who claim to live on the bleeding edge are in fact the old men on porch rocking chairs bitterly reminiscing about "the good old days" in the face of a rapidly changing world.
post #83 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?

I'm not even sure what you guys are talking about.

I think Taskiss kept just Apple and iPhone on his mind while you were talking about the broader market.

Your point was that, at least for the American market, companies in various markets can often form cartels or wield oligarchal powers over the market is true. In such situations, competition and market pressure doesn't necessarily force companies to produce better products because there are no alternatives. Witness that cable companies, or the Baby Bells, or the cellular phone market. (Maybe Motorola should have kept their Iridium constellation afterall. ). Market pressure aren't forcing these companies to be consumer friendly, and it seems the option of not buying isn't an option for consumers at large.

With respect to Apple, I'm not sure how they could fix it. One of the disappointments from the MWSF 07 Keynote was that Apple decided on a partnership with a TelCo instead of going on their own with an unlocked phone or being a MNVO. This could have broken the 4 orifices' terrible service, theoretically.

Oh, I think the really smart minds at Apple thought the decision over long and hard, and felt it would have been most difficult route to go against a TelCo as the infrastructure costs would have been enormous. Then, I'm sure the not so successful MNVO efforts to date was telling them something too. So, a strategic partnership it must be, with all the baggage that comes along with it. Maybe in 10 years when a 4G or 5G network will be really cheap to do, but certainly not now.

In such a situation, I'm not sure what the consumer can do other than flood the coffers of their local congressional rep. There's the option of making a MNVO (like Helio?) more successful.

As for the v1.1.1 update, I don't see how it is any different from the situation before. It didn't really change anything. I'm sure it served as a nice flash point for consumers for the sucky situation with wireless operators, not so great choices from other handset makers, and the iPhone's own lack of features. The iPhone is the most high profile handset to date, and any issue is bound to be blown up.
post #84 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

I think Taskiss kept just Apple and iPhone on his mind while you were talking about the broader market.

Exactly. It's called "focus on the topic" and I worked hard to do so. I also refused to be distracted from my position:

Competition. It's good for the consumer. Without it, there are no choices...without it there is no innovation.

AT&T is using the iPhone to entice customers. Other carriers are hammering on the phone manufacturers to come up with an "iPhone killer".

Who wins? Customers, of course! AND, without the iPhone setting the bar for interface functionality, what company would come up with anything other than something like that damn kludgy piece of crap interface my RAZR had? At least that was better than my Treo 650 (with the Palm OS), and better than the Blackberry I used for a short time.

But those that don't agree can have fun trying to explain how competition via product differentiation won't result in greater choices.
post #85 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

I'm not even sure what you guys are talking about.

I think Taskiss kept just Apple and iPhone on his mind while you were talking about the broader market.

Your point was that, at least for the American market, companies in various markets can often form cartels or wield oligarchal powers over the market is true. In such situations, competition and market pressure doesn't necessarily force companies to produce better products because there are no alternatives. Witness that cable companies, or the Baby Bells, or the cellular phone market. (Maybe Motorola should have kept their Iridium constellation afterall. ). Market pressure aren't forcing these companies to be consumer friendly, and it seems the option of not buying isn't an option for consumers at large.

With respect to Apple, I'm not sure how they could fix it.

I don't doubt that Apple probably didn't have any other way to go than to make a "strategic partnership" with a big carrier.

What I'm not quite sure about is how much of the lock-down of the iPhone is due to their partnership and AT&T's demands, how much is due to not having a stable API for developers to use yet, and how much is just Steve Jobs' control-freak side coming through.

My point is that while I can understand the situation, I don't feel any obligation to dutifully support two big companies getting everything they want out of a deal they've made with each other. I personally am wary of trying any of these iPhone hacks myself, but I'm glad others are making the effort.

Whether Apple had a choice in the terms of how they offer the iPhone to consumers is a moot point to me. The end result is still consumer-unfriendly terms of the type that are only going to exist when consumers are at a disadvantage to oligarchical suppliers who have the advantage in setting those terms.

Rather than having to settle for "take it or leave it", I'm happy to see hackers out there pushing for a third option: "Take it and try to make it better". I want companies who try to impose artificial technical restrictions and limitations, limitations that serve only benefit their favored business models at the expense of flexibility and features consumers would prefer to have, to get the strong feeling that those efforts may well be futile.

I also want our lawmakers to start using the rightful bargaining power on behalf of the public that they have, since they're licensing out access to the public's airwaves, to pass laws that ensure complete portability of service. I'm okay with locked-up phones if they're simply one option -- the consumer can then choose whether or not they like the deal they get by signing up for a long-term contract, getting a crippled, less flexible, but cheaper phone as part of the deal, but only when the option of an unlocked phone is always available, with carriers obligated to provide service at the same service price to customers with unlocked phones.

I'd also forbid carriers from imposing terms on phone manufacturers that limit which phones the manufacturers can sell in unlocked versions, which features they can sell in unlocked phones, or what price they're allowed to place on unlocked phones.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #86 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

As for the v1.1.1 update, I don't see how it is any different from the situation before. It didn't really change anything. I'm sure it served as a nice flash point for consumers for the sucky situation with wireless operators, not so great choices from other handset makers, and the iPhone's own lack of features.

Some people want to believe that the "sucky situation", as you refer to it, has nothing to do with oligarchical (what I was calling monopolistic before) power in the hands of carriers. We're apparently actually experiencing the optimal results of consumers being totally and completely in control. It's not the carriers being excessively greedy and wielding the advantage of a privileged position, but those dastardly EULA-breaking hackers, and the people using their hacks, the people who "won't grow up and accept that they can't have everything they want", who are the bad guys here.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #87 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I don't doubt that Apple probably didn't have any other way to go than to make a "strategic partnership" with a big carrier.

What I'm not quite sure about is how much of the lock-down of the iPhone is due to their partnership and AT&T's demands, how much is due to not having a stable API for developers to use yet, and how much is just Steve Jobs' control-freak side coming through.

My point is that while I can understand the situation, I don't feel any obligation to dutifully support two big companies getting everything they want out of a deal they've made with each other. I personally am wary of trying any of these iPhone hacks myself, but I'm glad others are making the effort.

Whether Apple had a choice in the terms of how they offer the iPhone to consumers is a moot point to me. The end result is still consumer-unfriendly terms of the type that are only going to exist when consumers are at a disadvantage to oligarchical suppliers who have the advantage in setting those terms.

Rather than having to settle for "take it or leave it", I'm happy to see hackers out there pushing for a third option: "Take it and try to make it better". I want companies who try to impose artificial technical restrictions and limitations, limitations that serve only benefit their favored business models at the expense of flexibility and features consumers would prefer to have, to get the strong feeling that those efforts may well be futile.

I also want our lawmakers to start using the rightful bargaining power on behalf of the public that they have, since they're licensing out access to the public's airwaves, to pass laws that ensure complete portability of service. I'm okay with locked-up phones if they're simply one option -- the consumer can then choose whether or not they like the deal they get by signing up for a long-term contract, getting a crippled, less flexible, but cheaper phone as part of the deal, but only when the option of an unlocked phone is always available, with carriers obligated to provide service at the same service price to customers with unlocked phones.

I'd also forbid carriers from imposing terms on phone manufacturers that limit which phones the manufacturers can sell in unlocked versions, which features they can sell in unlocked phones, or what price they're allowed to place on unlocked phones.

What you say certainly has merit and is worth discussion BUT it really has nothing to do with the iPhone and/or Apple. I thought we were in an Apple/iPhone thread.
post #88 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

What you say certainly has merit and is worth discussion BUT it really has nothing to do with the iPhone and/or Apple. I thought we were in an Apple/iPhone thread.

Yeah, you noticed that too, eh?

You obviously are part of the problem instead of the solution...which seems to be - encourage the hackers to break the laws, discourage the carriers who are following the laws, make a whole NEW set of laws up for the carriers to follow (in addition to some of the ones they already have), and then everything will be fine!

If you're a lawyer, perhaps.
post #89 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

What you say certainly has merit and is worth discussion BUT it really has nothing to do with the iPhone and/or Apple. I thought we were in an Apple/iPhone thread.

The title of this thread is "Why are people so angry about the update?" -- referring to the most recent software update of the iPhone. Many of the people who were angry about this update had hacked their iPhone in one way or another, and the update either disabled their favorite hacks, or even "bricked" their iPhone.

I think it's very relevant to the thread topic to get into the reasons why the iPhone is and can be sold as a carrier-locked device with other artificially-imposed limitations, why Apple and AT&T have the bargaining power to get consumers to accept consumer-unfriendly limitations, and the merit (or lack thereof, if that's your opinion) of trying to hack around those limitations.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #90 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I think it's very relevant to the thread topic to get into the reasons why the iPhone is and can be sold as a carrier-locked device with other artificially-imposed limitations, why Apple and AT&T have the bargaining power to get consumers to accept consumer-unfriendly limitations, and the merit (or lack thereof, if that's your opinion) of trying to hack around those limitations.

This could be a run-on sentence.

After all the discussion, I still have seen one of the central points addressed by the bricked crowd. Apple said it would likely happen before the update was released. They even said it just before installing the update.

At risk of throwing myself off topic, ringtones cost anywhere between $2.50 and $3. Apple's pricing and implementation is possibly the best in the business. Why did you think Apple would give it to you free when no one else does? What phone company allows free calls on VOIP? Why would Apple not sell games when every other cell company does? Why did people believe that Apple should partner with a traditional phone company yet no do any of the things that traditional phone companies do. But please, at the very least, answer the question in the first paragraph before moving on the the second. Thanks.

Good discussion, by the way.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #91 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

This could be a run-on sentence.

Nah. Lots of content, but very well structured.

Quote:
After all the discussion, I still have seen one of the central points addressed by the bricked crowd. Apple said it would likely happen before the update was released. They even said it just before installing the update.

One of my first comments in this thread was this: "People taking risks with unofficial software hacks shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong, and should accept that a lot of the grief they suffer is their fault, but actually cheering along and advocating intentional bricking? Because anyone who violates a EULA 'deserves' whatever they get?"

That you get a warning definitely tempers my opinion on how much anger is justified. What seems worthy to me of a little anger, or at least a bit of scorn or resentment, is not the specific this-update-causes-this-problem issue, but the general consumer-unfriendly environment in which the "Hackers vs. AT&T and Apple" battle takes place.

Quote:
At risk of throwing myself off topic, ringtones cost anywhere between $2.50 and $3. Apple's pricing and implementation is possibly the best in the business. Why did you think Apple would give it to you free when no one else does? What phone company allows free calls on VOIP?

A loose analogy: Many movie theaters can get away with selling a box of Jujubes for $5, the same box you could buy at a convenience store for $1. When a movie theater comes along that sells that same box of Jujubees for $2-$3, that's certainly an improvement, but it's still the same issue of extra profit based on exploiting a captive audience, and exploiting the typical movie theater rule that you aren't allowed to bring your own snacks.

I personally don't find anything terribly offensive about a cinematic patron breaking the "MVLA" (Movie Viewing License Agreement), shall we call it, and sneaking in their own box of Jujubes for which they paid a more reasonable $1.

When it comes to ringtones, I don't think "Apple would give it to you free when no one else does", no more than I think all movie theaters are going to suddenly start selling snacks and drinks at reasonable prices. That doesn't mean, however, we have to like the situation, or shouldn't, metaphorically speaking, give up on sneaking in our own box of Jujubes.

Just to stretch the analogy to the breaking point: Imagine a private business decides it wants to show movies outdoors in a public park. When the local government grants a permit to the private business for the right to exploit public land for private profit, the government should have every right -- and in fact, I'd call it a duty -- to get the best deal for the citizens to whom the land belongs. A very reasonable condition for acquiring the permit would be a stipulation that the public can bring their own snacks and drinks as they like.

Think of the use of the public airwaves that cellphones and cellphone carriers exploit as being like that public park. We as a people, acting through government as the representative of our consumer interests, should be pushing for a much better deal for ourselves in exchange for the right to exploit the lucrative potential of using the public airwaves for private profit.

Unfortunately, our governments tends to act more like -- to go back to the analogy -- the guy who issues the park permits is the cousin of the owner of the movie theater, and like the mayor owns the supply company that stocks the theater's concession stand.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #92 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Nah. Lots of content, but very well structured.


A loose analogy: Many movie theaters can get away with selling a box of Jujubes for $5, the same box you could buy at a convenience store for $1. When a movie theater comes along that sells that same box of Jujubees for $2-$3, that's certainly an improvement, but it's still the same issue of extra profit based on exploiting a captive audience, and exploiting the typical movie theater rule that you aren't allowed to bring your own snacks.

I personally don't find anything terribly offensive about a cinematic patron breaking the "MVLA" (Movie Viewing License Agreement), shall we call it, and sneaking in their own box of Jujubes for which they paid a more reasonable $1.

To further extend the analogy I think you agree that if you broke the MVLA and brought in Jujubes tainted with arsenic that then the Movie theatre would not be responsible for your sickness?
post #93 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

To further extend the analogy I think you agree that if you broke the MVLA and brought in Jujubes tainted with arsenic that then the Movie theatre would not be responsible for your sickness?

Depends. Were the Jujubes intrinsically contaminated with arsenic, or did the theater owner figure out a way to contaminate outside Jujubes with arsenic, while in-theater concession stand Jujubes stay safe?

This all gets back to something that I don't think anyone outside Apple really knows at this point. Did Apple go out of their way to create the "bricking" phenomena, or is bricking merely the result of Apple not expending extra effort to avoid problems with other people's hacks?

In the case of iToner (software from Ambrosia that allowed you to add your own ringtones), it appears that Apple probably went out of their way to break iToner, rather than iToner merely failing to work after the update because of a changing API that Ambrosia shouldn't have depended upon.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #94 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Depends. Were the Jujubes intrinsically contaminated with arsenic, or did the theater owner figure out a way to contaminate outside Jujubes with arsenic, while in-theater concession stand Jujubes stay safe?

This all gets back to something that I don't think anyone outside Apple really knows at this point. Did Apple go out of their way to create the "bricking" phenomena, or is bricking merely the result of Apple not expending extra effort to avoid problems with other people's hacks?

In the case of iToner (software from Ambrosia that allowed you to add your own ringtones), it appears that Apple probably went out of their way to break iToner, rather than iToner merely failing to work after the update because of a changing API that Ambrosia shouldn't have depended upon.

Now we get to the paranoia. Even if true (Apple purposely bricking the iPhone), which I find highly unlikely (why bother) and which more and more articles are also concluding as being unlikely, so, even if true, unlike your analogy, Apple did nothing illegal.

And just to be clear, so the issues don't get mixed together, whatever broke iToner is highly, highly unlikely to have anything to do with a bricked phone, these are separate issues.

Also, from what I've ready (and my own experience) those that only 'jailbroke' their phones without SIM unlocking, did not experience 'bricking' , at most a forced restore. (And I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but there always are problems with every upgrade)
post #95 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Some people want to believe that the "sucky situation", as you refer to it, has nothing to do with oligarchical (what I was calling monopolistic before) power in the hands of carriers. We're apparently actually experiencing the optimal results of consumers being totally and completely in control. It's not the carriers being excessively greedy and wielding the advantage of a privileged position, but those dastardly EULA-breaking hackers, and the people using their hacks, the people who "won't grow up and accept that they can't have everything they want", who are the bad guys here.

I think very very few people would agree to this sentiment, and a vast majority would agree that the current state of the US wireless market is very consumer unfriendly. The 4 big wireless carriers in America are among the least admired US companies by consumers after all.

I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that the carriers aren't excessively greedy, or that Apple isn't excessively greedy (virtually the highest profit margin among PC companies), or that the US government bends to corporations more than its citizens.

Does this mean we should have explicit or even implicit approval of hacks? Well, this is where a lot of people will feel differently. I'm at best indifferent. A lot of people are probably just indifferent. Not everyone feels the need to buck the system. Some will think breaking one's contract is illegal and the ends doesn't justify the means. Obviously some do, and they should that this is the game that must be played.

Now that the v1.1.1 update is well on its way to being hacked, it really should end this round of an Apple story making good copy. The rest is still the same as before with the same known issues about the iPhone (locked, no SDK, various hardware features missing, various software features missing like a Flash plugin). The only way to get some of those features are customer requests and customer buying decisions.
post #96 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I don't doubt that Apple probably didn't have any other way to go than to make a "strategic partnership" with a big carrier.

What I'm not quite sure about is how much of the lock-down of the iPhone is due to their partnership and AT&T's demands, how much is due to not having a stable API for developers to use yet, and how much is just Steve Jobs' control-freak side coming through.

Oh, the contract details have to be juicy. 5 years. AT&T altering their network for the iPhone (Fine EDGE, visual voicemail), Apple being very lock happy, affordable data package, revenue sharing. The negotiations must have been tough. I have to imagine an HSDPA iPhone will have at least a $30 data package. A 5 year commitment with revenue sharing has to mean that Apple must do their best efforts to lock the iPhone to ATT. I think the 3rd party stuff is just Apple not having the resources, or perhaps they know that expending existing resources for an SDK or other things to support 3rd party apps isn't worth the effort for awhile.

Quote:
I also want our lawmakers to start using the rightful bargaining power on behalf of the public that they have, since they're licensing out access to the public's airwaves, to pass laws that ensure complete portability of service. I'm okay with locked-up phones if they're simply one option -- the consumer can then choose whether or not they like the deal they get by signing up for a long-term contract, getting a crippled, less flexible, but cheaper phone as part of the deal, but only when the option of an unlocked phone is always available, with carriers obligated to provide service at the same service price to customers with unlocked phones.

I'd also forbid carriers from imposing terms on phone manufacturers that limit which phones the manufacturers can sell in unlocked versions, which features they can sell in unlocked phones, or what price they're allowed to place on unlocked phones.

Heh. I agree with you, but our law makers follow the money. No where in the world, but in the USA where on a daily basis, multi-billion and trillion dollar decisions are being made by people who must deal with all sort of shenanigans and motives that are at best no effect on its citizens.

Instead of customers giving money to a wireless carrier, it has to go to their local congressional rep. With a strongly worded note about what you want. With matching funds for when the carrier also contributes.
post #97 of 99
Thread Starter 
If you want to use the MVLA metaphor, very clever by the way, I will give you a real world example. I used to sneak snacks and drinks into theaters all the time. One day, I was caught with fast food cheese burgers under my coat. The smell and rattle of the bag must have given me away. The manager ask me to reveal what was under my coat. I could have refused and made a scene, but fair is fair, and I was caught. He then exercised the MVLA on me. That is to say, he sent me packing and revoked my right to see the movie.

I am sure that the makers of iToner are fine people. But they had to be crazy to think that Apple would let them get away with taking away their share of a billions dollar industry. The people who paid money for this service had to be even crazier. When someone puts a Skype client, don't pay for it or expect it to work for long. In other words, don't expect Apple to act like any other product in this category. All this hackery is high praise for the iPhone. Every body wants one, even those who don't like it. They will buy someone else's clone. People are trying to remake the iPhone in their own image and out do Apple.

I am reminded of one other real world story. I was one of those who bought a Mac mini when it was first released. There was another person in the line in front of me. We got into a conversation. He told me that he was going to turn it into a set-top box. I thought he was nuts at the time. Still do, actually. That is not what the mini was. Then people starting putting them in cars and such. These people could not complain if their brave hacks rendered the mini useless. As it happens, Apple really did not care what people did with the mini. Apple just was not going to fix it when the consumer broke it.

Please look at the iPhone carefully before buying it. If it is not what you want right out of the box, don't buy it. And stop expecting Apple to change the way the cell phone industry works overnight. Already, changes have been made and more will follow.

Rock on!
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #98 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Please look at the iPhone carefully before buying it. If it is not what you want right out of the box, don't buy it.

For most people, that's the best advice, but I'd also add this option: If you're up for the challenge, go ahead and try to make the phone better than it is out of the box, but expect that there are risks and that a cat-and-mouse game of hacks and counter-hacks is likely to ensue.

Don't be a whiner about it when things badly, but do press for the enforcement of every consumer protection law that you can find that might help open things up a bit in the mobile phone marketplace. Press for changing laws to be more consumer-friendly instead of more oligarchy-friendly. And if you're a hacker, please, keep on hackin'!

WARNING - SPECULATIVE THINKING FOLLOWS (some people just can't handle this):

We've seen a number of moves lately in favor DRM-free music distribution: iTunes Plus, Amazon's new MP3 store, Radiohead's pick-your-own price MP3s, joining in with things that have been around for a while, like eMusic and lesser-known performers who've taken the MP3 route.

MY OPINION is that it's terribly unlikely we'd be seeing very much of this at all if DRM had been working effectively.

It's very hard to imagine that if the vast majority of consumers always "played nice" according to all of the EULAs and IP laws, nearly all of which are (IMO) heavily slanted in in favor of the "content providers" and against the consumer, that there'd have been any incentive for anyone to go DRM-free. In fact, I'd imagine quite the opposite -- music everywhere wrapped up in tight, consumer-unfriendly DRM protection, never actually purchased but rented instead, with all sorts of "options" like pay-per-play, pay-per-platform, pay-per-application (iPod listening, ringtone, alarm-tone, etc., each considered separate "applications" that have to be paid for and licensed separately), all except for the simple option of just buying a song once and using it on whatever device you like whenever you like.

I think phone hackers stand a chance of doing for the phone industry what DRM hackers have done for the music industry: make most of the industry's attempts at artificially-imposed restrictions -- restrictions that have everything to do with propping up particular business models and nothing to do with improving their products for consumers -- seem futile.

Yes, I know and understand why Apple and AT&T want the iPhone locked to AT&T. I personally don't care what they want, however. They're making big profits using public airwaves, and there's still plenty of room for them to make money without their artificially-restrictive bullshit. I want Apple and AT&T to experience a feeling of futility when they try to keep the iPhone locked up, and I hope the hackers out there can keep up their side of this battle and make that happen.

Quote:
And stop expecting Apple to change the way the cell phone industry works overnight. Already, changes have been made and more will follow.

I expect no such thing. I'm not even that sure of how much of the way the industry works that Apple wants to change.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #99 of 99
I'm mad, just like a lot of people for the reason that, which im sure has been said, I want to run third party apps on my phone. There are so many good tools out there including vt100, colloquy, VNC and NES that are not only extremely useful and make my phone so much more valuable to me, but open the doors for so many other things. It should just be use at your own risk. A rollback should be available and restore if something were to happen that broke it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Why are people so angry about the update?